In defence of the 'intolerant'!

I read Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar’s article on the Muhammad cartoons in the Sunday Times of India (February 12), and was moved to write my opinion on the same. So long, I have resisted writing on the topic, because frankly, the same points were being bandied about in the same predictable fashion by the same parties. And yet, having read Mr. Aiyar’s article, I was spurred to write, because if there is one journalist whose articles I swear by, it is Mr. Aiyar.
That aside, when Mr. Aiyar congratulated the Danish Government for having stood behind its Fourth Estate and having safeguarded the basic freedom of the media, I was somehow disturbed. When he defends the cartoonists, I am furthermore distressed, and so emerges this blog.

• The freedom of expression granted to the Fourth Estate has often been abused by it, sometimes to the benefit of society, sometimes to its detriment. The media must be cognizant of the fact that it possesses a power far beyond the imagination of common mortals, that of being able to influence the minds of their fellow beings. And such power is best used with caution and responsibility. How the publication of these cartoons aims to enlighten or even invigorate the readers to do something positive is beyond me. Maybe, all this discussion about freedom and tolerance is a side-effect of the publication, but surely when the good cartoonists were sketching out the objectionable pictures, that was nowhere in their spectrum of thought. True, the right of the cartoonist to express his/her ideas about a situation is sacred, but like all sacred things, there is a limit to our belief and our faith in its infallibility. Why is it that even when a significant portion of the world’s population chooses to voice its hurt at such insensitive depictions of one of its iconic figures, the worthy representatives of the Fourth Estate continue to harp about the right to expression? Is this right greater than the people who provide it to you? Are we so depraved that we violate the sanctity of faith by our words and then hide behind the curtain of ‘Freedom’? Have we cared to enquire whether Freedom is willing to accept your mistakes?

I do not support those who have resorted to violence in protest. But, I do not support those who deny to the world the right to protest, saying that the Danish cartoonists are entitled to their opinions. My dear, I respect your opinion, but when it is published in a newspaper, in a journal, in a magazine, or on a website, it no longer is your opinion; it becomes the opinion of a people.

• Whether or not these cartoons demonize Islam is for the practitioners of the Islamic faith to decide. But, one must comprehend that whilst Indian cartoonists often depict the latest political drama using stories from Hindu mythology, the intention is never so much as to inflict hurt on the Hindu deity itself; rather the barb is aimed at the political personage. Comparisons between these cartoons and the Muhammad cartoons are irrelevant and preposterous.

Moreover, when a religion, in its religious texts and edicts, forswears from depiction of its icons in any manner whatsoever, the basic statute of tolerance, for those not believing in the religion, is to respect such an edict, and refrain from making fun of the said religion’s icons, especially in contravention of its edicts. And this isn’t limited only to edicts on the depiction of icons, but also on the consumption of taboo items, etc.
A reluctance to abide by such a statute is not a sign of bravado; it is a sign of barbarism, a mark of an uncultured society.  

• You want to make fun of a religion, do so in the privacy of your homes. Why must you seek the audience of the world? And if then the adherents of the specific religion deem it fit to punish you for your lack of respect, are you entitled to the cover of the freedom of expression?

I have seen the cartoons, and although I am not a adherent of the Muslim faith, I empathize with their angst, because I expect, in good faith, that if some day, some worthy personage should deem it fit to express his/her opinions on my faith, that too in a manner disrespectful of it, I too shall behave like they have today, maybe with some variations here and there, but nevertheless in the same emotional state.